I posted this last night TTT(on your other thread) it belongs here now.

""Meanwhile the treachery goes on as the cuckold imp Bercow bends the accepted rules, of the already disgraced commons, to facilitate a further deliberate disruption of the procedure to resign from the EUSSR pyramid scheme.

""Members of Parliament have challenged Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow for allowing a vote on an amendment intended to derail a “No Deal” Brexit, in what may be construed as a breach of Commons precedent.
It is widely expected that Prime Minister Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement will be voted down next week, which would leave No Deal as the default Brexit option. Current rules dictate that Mrs May would have to make a statement within 21 days on the Government’s plan of action, with a Commons vote in the following seven days.
However, Mr Bercow accepted a business motion amendment from Dominic Grieve, ad hoc leader of the anti-Brexit rebels within the Tory Party, calling for the Government to go back to Parliament within just three days of the “meaningful vote” — to give MPs an opportunity to try and block a No Deal Brexit, by all accounts.""

//Several MPs challenged the Speaker with points of order, with Tory Brexiteer Peter Bone asking for an explanation as to why, when he had attempted to propose an amendment to the same motion, he had been refused by the Table Office, saying “I was told it would be totally out of order and there would be no other amendments filed.”//

//A former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, Nikki da Costa, said: “More than anything this is not just overturning something the House accepted in a business motion, it is overturning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and procedure voted on and approved in both Houses with much debate and scrutiny, and indeed which Grieve accepted on floor of the House.” Andrea Leadsom, a Cabinet Brexiteer and Leader of the House of Commons, asked Mr Bercow to release the advice he received from the Clerk of the House of Commons on whether the amendment should have been accepted, but he declined to do so.//

Remember the "Fixed Term Parliamentary Act" 2011? The one that we all thought might be a good idea? It also removed the Royal Prerogative to dissolve parliament act. Shame that now is it not? ""

"The former Tory MP has said he voted Remain in the 2016 referendum but insisted he is scrupulously impartial."

Well that's alright then.

In any case we all know by now that May's plot will be rightly rejected, and vastly better "plan B" is the 'no-deal' exit; as there won't be any feasible alternative exits ? No one needs May to point this out to them, surely ?

//The Remainer Deep State is killing Brexit.
Just consider for a moment the last few days’ shenanigans in and around Parliament.
First the concocted hysteria about the barracking of Remainer MP Anna Soubry, designed to recast ordinary Brexiteers as mindless, fascist thugs.
Next two extraordinary pieces of ad hoc legislation rushed through in the last few days, eagerly ushered in by the Remainer Speaker of the House John Bercow, and voted through by a Remainer-dominated Parliament, designed with the sole purpose of frustrating the “No Deal” Brexit that is now Britain’s only way of getting the full Brexit it voted for in June 2016.
The corruption, the abuse of process, the partisanship, the betrayal of the democratic process, the lies, the cant, the play-acting, the skullduggery have been so shameless and blatant as to beggar belief.
It’s no wonder the ordinary folk who voted Brexit are growing increasingly restive and bitter. The Remainer Establishment — or Deep State, if you prefer — is snatching Brexit away from them; and it’s so arrogant, so complacent, so contemptuous of the public that it’s scarcely bothering even to hide its tracks.
Take John Bercow. As Speaker of the House, he is supposed to be non-partisan. Bercow’s idea of non-partisanship where Brexit is concerned is to turn up to work in a car (with the personalised number plate B13RCO) with a rear window sticker that says “*** TO BREXIT.”
Bercow is an unpleasant piece of work — a “vicious, careerist, small-minded martinet”, as Quentin Letts once put it — who should have been forcibly ejected long ago from the Speaker’s chair he has repeatedly disgraced.
In October last year, it seemed finally as if the poisonous dwarf were going to get his comeuppance, after a damning report by Dame Laura Cox into bullying and harassment in Parliament.
As the Guardian reported:
The former judge said she found a culture of “deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence” and recommended that people in management roles, including Bercow, should consider their positions. The Speaker has been the subject of multiple bullying allegations, which he denies.
But instead of pursuing these allegations — which normally it would have done, especially in the post #MeToo witch hunt climate — our virtue-signalling parliamentarians have proved oddly reluctant to boot out this charmless bruiser. Why? Because Bercow has made it his business to sabotage Brexit and most MPs, whatever they may think of him personally, are Remainers.
Bercow, Tom Harris drily notes at Cap-X, is “about as even-handed and impartial on the matter of Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg.”

And Parliament’s support of this creepy character demonstrates the most shaming hypocrisy:
Virtually every Labour MP in the Commons, formerly proud advocates of women’s and workers’ rights to workplaces free from bullying, chose to suspend that particular principle last year when serious accusations against the Speaker, from more than one reliable source, emerged. Normally – and especially if such allegations had involved a Conservative minister – Labour would have demanded immediate action. But in Bercow’s case – as lucidly explained by Dame Margaret Beckett MP – the cause of opposing Brexit trumps any less important issue such as the rights of Commons members of staff.
As Isabel Hardman observes at the Spectator, Bercow has become a law unto himself.
Today Speaker Bercow told the House of Commons that he could disregard precedent and change procedure as he wished, while admitting that he hadn’t fully thought through the implications of this.
Imagine, for a moment, if the Speaker’s bias had been towards Brexit; imagine if the two MPs whose obstructive amendments the Speaker had encouraged had been ardent Brexiteers like, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Andrew Bridgen.
Can you imagine the scandalised response it would get from the BBC and most of the rest of the mainstream media??// cont.

If you take the last two letters from his name you get a word which sounds like what he is. And if you understand the etymology of that word (shortened rhyming slang) you get another word describing what he is.

cont.
//There would be calls for Bercow’s resignation; endless “why oh why?” editorials about the decline of parliamentary standards; indignant commentary that Parliament’s sovereignty was being suborned by narrow cliques…
But because Bercow’s dirty tricks are in accord with where most of the Establishment is on Brexit — i.e. wanting it derailed by whatever means necessary — you’re scarcely going to hear a peep of protest…
…Except, of course, from those members of the silent majority who are feeling increasingly let down by a democratic system which they see so blatantly being rigged against them. They voted Brexit to get rid of this venal, self-serving Establishment. And here’s that venal, self-serving Establishment raising an elegant middle finger and saying to them: “Swivel, plebs!”//

The Speaker hasn’t broken any rules. Just deserted from precedent. And no less a personage than Jacob Rees-Brexit has held him up as a “champion of parliament”.
This is our parliament taking back control people ;-)

If indeed this breaks *rules* then it's completely wrong. But, as ich says, there is a distinction between rules and precedent. Also, I am interested why you think this in any way "stitches up" Brexit. It forces Theresa May to get a move on if her Deal goes down next week. That is all. Makes it harder for her to return the same deal to the House twice, for example.

In effect this takes power away from government, who would have been free to stall and delay, and gives it back to Parliament, and forces everybody to get on with things.